Welcome!

Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum...
You are currently logged out and viewing our forum as a guest which only allows limited access to our discussions, photos and other forum features. If you are a 12ozProphet Member please login to get the full experience.

If you are not a 12ozProphet Member, please take a moment to register to gain full access to our website and all of its features. As a 12ozProphet Member you will be able to post comments, start discussions, communicate privately with other members and access members-only content. Registration is fast, simple and free, so join today and be a part of the largest and longest running Graffiti, Art, Style & Culture forum online.

Please note, if you are a 12ozProphet Member and are locked out of your account, you can recover your account using the 'lost password' link in the login form. If you no longer have access to the email you registered with, please email us at [email protected] and we'll help you recover your account. Welcome to the 12ozProphet Forum (and don't forget to follow @12ozprophet in Instagram)!

O'Reilly: OK For Terrorists To Attack San Fran

San Franciscans have been in an uproar this week over apparent comments by the host of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that it was A-OK for terrorists to wipe the city off the map.

At issue are comments from O'Reilly's Election Day broadcast on his syndicated Westwood One radio show about a San Francisco ballot measure opposing the presence of military recruiters in city schools.

"Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead," O'Reilly said, according to a transcript and audio posted by liberal media watchdog group Media Matters for America, and by the San Francisco Chronicle.

"And if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill.

Adding to the buzz was the archived version of O'Reilly's Tuesday show, which omitted the incendiary comments, according to Bay Area TV station KNTV.

City officials were not amused. "It sounds like he's on the same medication Rush Limbaugh is addicted to, and he should go see a therapist,'' Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, whose district includes the tower, told the Chronicle.

Neither O'Reilly nor Fox News have yet commented on the dust-up.

'The big digit to the military'?
As for the ballot measure, which urged local high schools and colleges to bar military recruiters from their campuses, it passed with 60 percent of San Franciscans in favor of it.

The radio show was not the only time O'Reilly commented on the ballot proposition. On his Monday night "O'Reilly Factor," he tangled with Angela Alioto, the former president of the city's Board of Supervisors.

"Why should the rest of the country protect your butt, with all due respect, OK, when it comes to the war on terror, if San Francisco is going to thumb your nose and give the big digit to the military? Why should ... why should we protect you from al-Qaida and terrorists if you're going to disrespect the military, by passing this ... even though it's symbolic ... this resolution?" he asked Alioto.

Alioto briefly tripped up O'Reilly during her appearance, pointing out that he had conflated the military-recruitment measure with another measure to ban handguns. That measure also passed, 58 percent to 42 percent.

yeah thats fucked up but i guess the ACLU is defending the core value of free speech meaning you should be able to say or distribute information of any kind as long as you are not directly encouraging illegal behavior.

and as far as i know i dont believe nambla encourages its members or anyone for that matter to kill children.

abduct yes, molest yes, but of course theyre not in those words.

now before you go on thinking "cacash you fucking perv, go choke on a donut and die you sick pig"

i think the aclu is defending cases like this because if one case is lost then that sets the precedent for other types of speech to be censored.

example: if nambla gets silenced or say a website forum that functions in a similar capacity and provides the same info as the nambla shit does get shut down for promoting or at least providing a guide to illegal behavior, whats to stop say a graffiti forum like 12oz from getting shut down.

and after that it gets to the point where you cant even talk about subject matter in a hypothetical or fictional sense because that too can be considered as promoting illegal behavior.

now i myself am not that extreme in the idea of free speech but im trying to present another viewpoint that the ACLU is probably thinking from.

i think the aclu is defending cases like this because if one case is lost then that sets the precedent for other types of speech to be censored.

[post=4166958]Quoted post[/post]​

Click to expand...

[post=4166994]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

I hate to find myself defending much of anything the ACLU does, and I absolutely despise and loathe NAMBLA, but in this case the ACLU is correct. The problem is that we lack a law outlawing the desemination of material like NAMBLA produces. It qualifies as "child pornography" in my opinion, and which is against the law. Since apparently the law does not prohibit what NAMBLA does (advocate fucking little boys) perhaps just the outraged sensibilities of the public will lead to the exposure and censure of the members of NAMBLA. (This falls into the "GET A ROPE!" category.)

How can any American hate the ACLU?
Their whole deal is to try and defend our personal freedoms from those that would outlaw anything and everything.
Of course they have to defend the scumbags too cause if they are denied freedom of speech, everybody else is next... one group after the other.

Laws are like cancer, one leads to the next. That's why our country's so fucked up these days. Imagine how fucked it's gonna get in the next 10-20 years with all the new nonsense bullshit laws being passed everyday all for the sake of giving some politician or grieving parent a name for themself.

I wonder how long it's gonna take till people start getting sentenced jail time for running a stop sign or riding their bike on the sidewalk? I can see the propaganda campaign for it now... M.A.S.R ---> Mothers Against Stopsign Runners. :yuck:

Originally posted by SF1@Nov 12 2005, 07:13 PMHow can any American hate the ACLU?
Their whole deal is to try and defend our personal freedoms from those that would outlaw anything and everything.
Of course they have to defend the scumbags too cause if they are denied freedom of speech, everybody else is next... one group after the other.

Laws are like cancer, one leads to the next. That's why our country's so fucked up these days. Imagine how fucked it's gonna get in the next 10-20 years with all the new nonsense bullshit laws being passed everyday all for the sake of giving some politician or grieving parent a name for themself.

I wonder how long it's gonna take till people start getting sentenced jail time for running a stop sign or riding their bike on the sidewalk? I can see the propaganda campaign for it now... M.A.S.R ---> Mothers Against Stopsign Runners. :yuck:

[post=4167246]Quoted post[/post]​

Click to expand...

Well, a lot of the publicity that the ACLU gets is negative due to the people they end up defending. It's really not that big of a leap to imagine how people could get the wrong impression about the ACLU.

Dude, you seem to be under the impression that we stepped out of the garden of eden shortly after your birth and shit has been going downhill ever since. There have always been an ass load of laws, there always will be. Just because you don't like or understand something doesn't mean that it is bullshit or nonsense.

Krakabar->
Who said it all started when I was born? not me.
The fact is that the amount of petty laws in this country is out of control. We are litterally spiraling into a police state and you could even argue that we are already there. Whenever it started heading in this direction is beside the point.

And yes laws dictating (for example) where you can ride your bike, whether or not you're allowed to stand on a corner on the strip talking to your freinds, what plants you're aloud to smoke, wheather or not you feel like wearing a helmet or seat belt, or what time you can park your car on your own street without it getting took and auctioned off to someone else if you can't afford the ransom to get it back etc, etc, etc are all bullshit and nonsense. In my city it's illegal to be homeless and that law extends to the non homeless due to the "sidewalk ordanence" bill prohibiting sitting on the same bench for more than 30 minutes. These laws are all bullshit petty nonsense and with each petty minor law that gets passed the punishments and enforcement for the older laws increase. My boy is doing 2 years for DUI for gods sake and he never even got in an accident much less killed anybody. In my city if you get caught with an illegal gun, or even if you legally own your gun and have a liscense to carry and the whole 9, and you get caught with drugs you get an automatic 5 years in prison minimum.In Boston and California Graffiti is a felony.Instead of getting a fine and community service, people get sent to state prison for writing on shit! That is bullshit and that is petty as fuck to completely ruin somebody's life just because you don't like how they are living it and If you can't see that then there's something wrong with you.

The criminal codes of each respective state are written by the legislators elected by the people of that state. We get to VOTE on who we send to the local, State and Federal legislatures to write our laws. Personally, I think we have way, way too many laws. I think that most of the laws regarding recreational drugs have the exact opposite affect than intended. I think that most of the new laws intended to suppress gang activity would be completely unnecessary if the people's right to be armed was not being restricted. There have always been thugs and predators, it's just that before the 1870's, they were pretty damned careful about who they attempted to rob or harm, because in most states, law-abiding citizens were 100% able to carry firearms or other weapons wherever they went.

All these laws are an attempt to obtain civil behavior from people who choose to be uncivil. I think it's a waste of effort. There was a time when rape was a hanging offense. There was a time when if someone gave a child narcotics, his father went and beat the offending drug provider senseless. If the offender persisted, he would likely be either killed in the street or hanged. Prostitution was legal, opium was available for pennies at the apothecary (pharmacy), horse thieves were promptly hanged, and if you wished to see a young woman socially, you first asked her father for permission, unless you were willing to risk serious bodily injury. Out-of-wedlock births were extremely low, except among the poorest of the poor.

Society did not need as many laws, because people's behavior was constrained by religious belief, social convention and voluntary compliance with long-established social morays.

What is happening today is that we are staggering under a tremendous load of laws designed to enforce behavior acceptable to the liberal do-gooders. Abortion is a good example. I can't think of any punishment for immoral behavior worse than having your kid killed. Can you? Mom and Dad fail to control Susie and Bobby's desire to have sex, and the punishment for Susie getting pregnant is that the baby is killed. Incredible, the only one of the group that is actually INNOCENT gets punished. That is some fucked up shit right there.

Bill O'Reilly is wrong for saying that it would be just fine if terrorists attacked San Francisco. It wouldn't be just fine at all. It's true that San Francisco has tons of liberals, gays, communists, socialists, anarchists and so on, but it also has thousands of just regular people who vote against all that liberal crap, but no longer have enough votes to win. He's being facetious, and we all know it. (At least, I hope he's being facetious.) He just hates the fact that the most beautiful city in America has been hi-jacked by liberal idiots. Get over it, Bill, there's not a thing you can do about it.

Well, you missed the point again, SF. I suppose that is what I should expect by now. What I meant when I mentioned your birth is that you are too short sighted to realize there have always been laws, and a lot of them seem like nonsense when viewed at face value.

If anything, I would think that the amount of laws and regulations hasn't changed, they just change focus in response to the population and times.

I'm not going to explain why the laws you listed exist, either. You only view it from the perspective of those who break the laws.

"You only view it from the perspective of those who break the laws. "
When everyday life is outlawed everybody becomes an outlaw.
Who are you to act like you don't break laws in your everyday life? It is litterally imposible to go about everyday life without breaking one of the 968,30,865,778,596 laws in this country. Aint this a graffiti forum? and you wanna play the roll of mister law abiding citezen? There's no such thing! Unless you live in a plastic bubble due to some immune deficiency, it is impossible for you not to break laws in your everyday life. Are you a bubble boy Krakabar?